Which is correct?

I require my students to submit a bibliography in a required assignment. The bibliography must conform to the Chicago Manual of Style, 15^th Edition. The sole style manual most of my students have used is the MLA Handbook promulgated by the Modern Language Association. I tell my students that real scholarship is done in Chicago style. Most of my students use the Manual of Style by Kate L. Turabian (revised by the current editors of the CMS) which is based on the CMS. The CMS maintains a nice Web site and sends along notices like the one below from time to time. If this be (fair & balanced) pedantry, so be it.

The Chicago Manual of Style Web site has just been updated with answers to the following new questions:

Q. Please help resolve a debate: Is it proper (or good) academic form to begin a sentence with a conjunction: "And I believe that is true." "But editors differ on this rule." "Nor is this uncommon." I say it is improper in academic writing that is heading for publication, while others with journalism training say that it is correct. We are editors for an academic law review.

Q. Please tell me if it's permissible to use a comma rather than a semicolon in the following sentence: "The idea isn't to use the test to get people in trouble, it's to help them avoid decisions they'll regret later." The rules seem to suggest that a semicolon is preferred but not absolutely required; a semicolon feels to me like it separates the thoughts more than I'd like.

Q. When talking about "the turn of the century" (from 1899 to 1900), should it be "the turn of the nineteenth century" or "the turn of the twentieth century"? It seems that since the years 1800 to 1899 have been referred to as the nineteenth century, then the turn from 1899 to 1900 should be referred to as "the turn of the nineteenth century." Please advise.

Q. I work for an organization that uses a fair amount of corporate lingo in its publications. The expression "visibility into" seems to be widely used in place of the expression "insight into" . . . this confuses me (okay, it also annoys me). Based on the common definition of "visibility," does it really make sense to say that one has "visibility into" something? Before I start a campaign to eradicate what I see as an unsightly phrase, can you tell me if the phrase "visibility into" meets the standards of acceptable usage?

Q. I am editing a history book with three parts. The translator for part 1 and the writer of part 2 are now deceased; part 3 was written by a living person. Do I include birth and death dates on the title page? I also have a separate page beginning each part. Should the birth and death date be included there also or instead? Should the birth date of the living author (and editor) be included?

To read the answers to these questions, go to the Chicago Manual of Style Web site, at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. The site also includes a searchable archive of questions and answers about style and usage, information about the Manual, and author and editor tools related to the Manual. More improvements are forthcoming.

This is the October 2003 update of the Chicago Manual of Style Web site. We update the site monthly.

Copyright © 2003 by The University of Chicago.

If you wish to subscribe to these updates, or if you would like to register and receive full access to the Chicago Manual of Style Web site (including the search tool), go to CMS.